Supreme Court Denies Review for Michael Skakel

Michael Skakel, convicted of the murder of Martha Moxley for which he is serving a 20 year to life sentence, lost his bid for Supreme Court review.

The principal issue was the expiration of the Statute of Limitiations at the time Skakel was charged. Former Solicitor General Ted Olson represented Skakel, the nephew of Ethel Kennedy, in the appeal.

At the time of Moxley's killing, Connecticut had a five-year statute of limitations on murder cases that did not involve the death penalty. One year later, in 1976, the state legislature removed the five-year deadline in such cases.

The Connecticut Supreme Court upheld Skakel's conviction, overturning its earlier holding that the new law did not apply to crimes committed before its enactment. The legislature intended to remove the deadline for prosecution for all crimes, like Moxley's killing, for which the statute of limitations had not yet expired, the state court said.

Olson said the state court was wrong and that applying the new law to this case violated Skakel's constitutional rights.

Skakel still has a motion for new trial pending in the state court.

< Can the Dems Deliver? Why Did Feingold Bow Out of 2008? | Sentencing Commission to Revisit Crack-Powder Penalties >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    this was another one of those (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by cpinva on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 01:23:16 PM EST
    "we just know he's guilty, even though we can't actually prove it by the actual evidence." cases. he was convicted, not because the state proved its case, but because he's a twit, and she was such a nice young girl. oh, and let's not forget the lobbying on the part of the parents.

    don't get me wrong, he may well be guilty, but the state didn't prove it, the jury just didn't like him. same with scott peterson.

    doesn't this constitute an "ex post facto" law?

    i don't know if he did or didn't do it (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by cpinva on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 09:04:52 PM EST
    (skakel, that is), just that the prosecution never proved it, beyond a reasonable doubt. i believe i made that quite clear, in my original post.

    i used the scott peterson case as analogy: lack of evidence, yet a conviction, because of who the victim was, and the character of the accused.

    with regards to the facts in the peterson case, i believe quite a number of threads on this site lay them out.

    i am still a tad confused about the law change, with regards to the statute of limitations. wouldn't applying that to events occurring, prior to the law's enactment, constitute an "ex post facto" situation?

    Scott Peterson? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Slado on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 02:38:38 PM EST
    When did it become public knowledge that he didn't do it?  

    Cpniva what are the facts?  I can understand that some think Skakel was railroaded but Peterson?   What makes you tink he didn't do it?

    No change of subject, please (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 03:03:01 PM EST
    This thread is about Skakel, not Peterson. Thanks.

    did you sit on the jury? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 09:16:59 AM EST
      It always amazes me how people make such pronouncements based on following second or third hand media accounts of trials. There is a reason jurors are required  actually to  attend trials  and listen to all the evidence and make up their own minds rather than staying home and voting based on media reports.

      As for the issue on appeal. I believe aapplying the law which repealed the SOL after the crime was committed does constitute ex post facto legislation if it is appliued to allow a prosecution that the law at the time of the crime would not allow. There is no question that the law as written at the time of the crime limited prosecutions for this crime to 5 years from the crime.

      When the petition was filed, I stated that i believed that if the Supreme Court accepted cert it would reverse the Connecticut Supreme Court but that here was a strong possibility it would simply deny cert and let the decision stand without addressing the issue. As it is now the Connecticut decision affects only Connecticut and the issue is unlikely to arise very often there.


    An Innocent Man (none / 0) (#6)
    by TheJusticeClub on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 12:00:00 PM EST
    Skakel was convicted by circumstance of three reasons:

    1. irresponsible journalism/media frenzy creating...

    2. public hysteria which enacted...

    3. political agenda

    ...all resulting in prosecutorial misconduct.

    There exists no evidence or fact that Michael Skakel murdered Martha Moxley.

    Michael Skakel is innocently accussed and innocently convicted.